Benk cont/d:

The relative lack of no-contact orders suggests that men are not being
denied contact with their children by the Family Court. These findings are supported by other research, which suggests that the principle of both parents having contact with their children often overrides considerations of the safety of the parties and, arguably, the best interests of the children.">

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/GriffLawRw/2001/8.pdf

Only about 30% of women who experience family violence report it to police. Threats and intimidation are domestic violence. http://www.relationships.com.au/resources/pdfs/rest/trvol15.pdf/
http://www.relationships.com.au/resources/pdfs/rest/trvol50.pdf/

If someone bigger who has the capacity to overpower you is shouting at you, how do you think you'd respond ?

What's a normal response ?

How do you advise women to respond ?

(Suzie g'day - haven't found that link yet but it is on my list of things to do - pynch :))

Pynchme is absolutely correct. At the end of the day, there are rarely orders made that refuse fathers contact with their children, except in exceptional circumstances of proven violence or criminal activities.

I wonder what sort of men 'Septic and Benk are talking about?

Is it really the lack of contact with children that is the problem for some men, or is it the loss of control over 'their' women and children that really upsets them? Violence often follows frustration.

The friends I know who have had the misfortune to go through the family court system ended up with a fair deal when deciding on custody arrangements with the children.

It all worked out in the end because they both wanted what was best for the kids, and everything else came second.
If only all couples could be this reasonable!

Benk <" So in other words, you are prepared for thousands of men to be disadvantaged, most of whom have done nothing wrong, to protect a few women. That sort of lack of empathy for blokes explains why most of the men on OLO have a pretty dim view of this whole fiasco."

What thousands of men are you talking about Benk?
Surely all those thousands of men can't be innocent?

Surely you aren't suggesting the courts should give all men accused of domestic violence the benefit of the doubt, if it is only a few women or children getting seriously or fatally wounded?

Even one fatal assault is too much Benk!

I only have empathy for men who are man enough to face their personal problems without the need for violence of any kind.

Pynchme and Suzie
Good efforts but you are wasting your time. It is like debating evolution or atheism with the true believers. Rational argument goes out the window and one-sided truisms become the order of the day.

Too much emotional baggage in the baby boomer generation (on both sides) - it will be up to Generation Y to sort out the gender divide. Maybe they will come to it with more an open mind with less conservative upbringings, possibly a more equitable and fairer outlook for men and women, and more importantly children.

Thanks Pelican, I think you're right about that.

I find it really hard to see the untruths that are damaging to people laid out and left without challenge. I'm getting better at leaving it be but every so often I think of some face or case or something I've read and the compulsion to respond is irresistible.

I think I'll take heed of your wise words for now,

pynch

Your're right of course Pelican! I have even said it before on this forum. However, I too find it hard to let some comments slide without responding.

I usually get to a point (which is now) where I say enough of this thread. It doesn't mean I have given up- just that I am bored with the same arguments.

See you on another thread ladies.